Gun Control - California Style

1. 85

   My Esotericposted 2 weeks ago

   "Indiana fatal shooting renews questions about stand-your-ground laws and their limits. Here’s what to know"
   
   Cleaning lady tries to enter wrong house and is murdered by the occupant. The man you killed her will likely be charged with manslaughter of some sort - good.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/us/stand-your-groun … its-states

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      What information I've seen on this indicates that this man should never, ever held a gun in his hands.  He has obviously never had any training and has no idea of what his rights are, or when he should pull the trigger.
      
      On this one - put him behind bars.  His action was unconscionable and exceedingly stupid - we don't need such people wandering the streets.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Unlike some states, Indiana's gun safety laws do not require firearm training to buy or possess a weapon.  Maybe they should.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I would agree...except that that would most definitely "infringe" on their right to own a gun.  Cannot do.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               You know as well as I that the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment was changed by Scalia and Thomas years ago when they dug up British law to have it apply it to things other than state militias, As a literalist, I would think you recognize that.
               
               To refresh -
               
               A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
               
               The current interpretation of those words by conservatives on the SCOTUS bears no resemblance to either the literal text or the intended meaning. So, my position is (and Scalia and Thomas agree) is that the word "infringe" doesn't mean what you think it means.
               
               More specifically, SCOTUS, in its ruling, said "Case citation:
               
               New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).
               
               Pin cite (slip opinion):
               Look at Justice Thomas’s majority opinion, around the discussion distinguishing may-issue from shall-issue licensing. In the official slip opinion, this is in the section where he says that nothing in the Court’s holding should be taken to cast doubt on “shall-issue licensing regimes,” which often include things like:
               
               background checks,
               
               fingerprinting,
               
               mental health records checks, and
               
               “training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,”
               so long as those systems are objective and not administered to deny ordinary citizens their rights.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                  That you wish to make the first sentence of the amendment as important as the rest does not make it so.  The judges made the right decision - the intended meaning was that government shall not infringe on the right to own weapons.  Cannons were all right.  mortars were all right.  Automatic weapons were not that far away - certainly within the understanding and imagination of the writers - and were all right.  We restrict all of these, and I find that all right.  But you - you would restrict it to peashooters and BB guns and I do NOT find that all right.  That you do it with the idea it will prevent deaths when you have examined that idea and KNOW better only makes it worse.

                  replyreport